1. First, is it a right or privilege or something else? Some believe a right - like trial by jury. Some believe a privilege that we must earn - like a gold watch. The problem is that it costs more than a gold watch and is more necessary to survival than a jury trial. Sub-questions galore - smokers, obese, poor, elderly, exercise, nutrition...

2. Why does it cost so much? For crying out loud, in this day and age computers keep improving and costing less. Why not an MRI? It seems competition does not affect health care very much.

3. So if it continues to cost more, does it improve lifetimes or quality? Honestly, I don't know.

Insurance has been around for thousands of years (shipping) - usually to protect investments against disaster or theft. The idea being that the insurer made a profit by selling insurance to many people in return for accepting the risk of disaster or theft. It made a profit if few disasters and thefts occurred. The insured benefited because if disaster or theft occurred, it recouped its loses from the insurer. It worked because the insurer knew the risk of disaster or theft and could then calculate how much to charge the insured in return for accepting the risk.

The problem with health insurance is that everybody wants it, but nobody wants to lose money selling it. In other words, it does not work for the sick - those who need health care. It'd be like an insurance company selling insurance to somebody for $100 knowing that the person is about to be robbed of $10,000.00.

I can think of two solutions:

A. Universal Health CareB. No medical history information to health insurance companies with prices by age and location alone. Contract length could be determined by the market. Also, health insurance companies must provide insurance for all ages with only Medicare for those over ~65.

1. In most cases, people have little influence on whether or not they'll get sick. Therefore, illness should be viewed as a fundamental part of what it means to be human and, as such, access to treatment for illness should be based on acknowledgment of the human condition, not the ability to pay. It's a fundamental human right. As Locke wrote, man has the write to life after vitality. It's an extension of that belief.

2. If we can make health care more affordable in the United States more people are likely to seek out a doctor before problems become big and costly. Preventative care is so important. There is no reason for anybody to go to the ER anymore for asthma. The medications available are phenomenal. Still, emergency room visits to the hospital for asthma are in charge of ~97 percent of the cost. If you just take your inhaler on time everything should be fine. But people fail repeatedly. Same thing with diabetes. Early detection is crucial because you can control it. If you don’t detect it early you have to cut people’s limbs off. Is what we have now really the right system for a free market? Seventy percent of the income for any hospital comes from the ER. Those people aren't shopping.

There are millions of people who can’t get health insurance. And those people cost us, and everyone else with insurance, more because they can’t pay for the care they do receive. Premiums go up each year in part to help cover the cost of those who can’t afford to go to the doctor and end up having to go to the emergency room instead.

What we have now is a disease care system and it isn't working.

3. No.

4. See 2.

No health care system is perfect but the United States, with our combination of extraordinarily(!) high costs and mediocre overall results(!!), is as clear an example of a market failure as you could find. If you're poor, America is a much worse place to get sick than dozens of other countries that, although much less wealthy than the U.S., find ways to provide quality medical care for all of their citizens.

1. One of the problems with treating healthcare as a right is the fact that enjoying it requires the labor of others. Unless one can have the right to the labor of others, one cannot have a right to healthcare. (Or to jury trials, for that matter, but juries could more easily be provided on a voluntary basis than healthcare.)

2. AndrewStebbins mentioned the lack of prevenative care. I think this is largely a product of perverse cost incentives--it's simply cheaper on average to wait until an emergency, if one happens. I'm not sure how to solve either without forcing people to pay the true cost of ER visits, which would be politically suicidal to propose. There's also a problem with unhealthy lifestyle choices, which I'm not sure how to solve without coercion, except perhaps lifting government subsidies on unhealthy things like corn syrup and lifting duties on imports of healthy foods.

Another problem with healthcare costs is the overregulation. For instance, a new prescription drug sits unavailable for at least 10 years after its development before it is even decided if it will ever be available to the public. Imagine if every time a new car was developed, Chevy had to wait 10 years before finding out if it gets to sell it. Car prices would skyrocket. Once drugs are finally produced, the prescription drug laws work to keep prices high. For instance, I take a prescription that costs $60 each month. There is another drug on the market that is the same exact medicine in 4x the dose. This drug, however, can only legally be prescribed for an ailment I don't have. It's cost? Also $60. Were this restriction lifted, I could purchase this second pill and a pill-cutter, instantly getting the same benefit for 1/4 the cost.

Another problem is that much of our healthcare expenses are guaranteed by the government programs, so there is no incentive among providers to keep costs down. (We see the same problem in the cost of tuition at universities--subsidized loans guarantee money for schools, who in turn have little incentive to control costs.)

3. If costs correlated with benefits, water would be the most expensive thing on earth.

4. The solution is not universal healthcare. Healthcare, unfortunately, has finite availability. When you give scarce things away for free, you run out. The task is to figure out the most efficient way to distribute the resources that we have, and central planning and single-payer systems (in any industry) have had a dismally poor track record throughout history.

One thing I think would do a lot is to lift most of the regulations on healthcare and allow patients, if they choose, to seek riskier treatment options (e.g. experimental or unapproved drugs, doctors with lesser credentials, etc.). We could also alter the law for drug patents adding a mandatory licensing fee, like we have for certain copyrights. That way generics could be available from day one while still offering the patent holders at least some protection.

1. First, is it a right or privilege or something else? Some believe a right - like trial by jury. Some believe a privilege that we must earn - like a gold watch. The problem is that it costs more than a gold watch and is more necessary to survival than a jury trial. Sub-questions galore - smokers, obese, poor, elderly, exercise, nutrition...

2. Why does it cost so much? For crying out loud, in this day and age computers keep improving and costing less. Why not an MRI? It seems competition does not affect health care very much.

3. So if it continues to cost more, does it improve lifetimes or quality? Honestly, I don't know.

Insurance has been around for thousands of years (shipping) - usually to protect investments against disaster or theft. The idea being that the insurer made a profit by selling insurance to many people in return for accepting the risk of disaster or theft. It made a profit if few disasters and thefts occurred. The insured benefited because if disaster or theft occurred, it recouped its loses from the insurer. It worked because the insurer knew the risk of disaster or theft and could then calculate how much to charge the insured in return for accepting the risk.

The problem with health insurance is that everybody wants it, but nobody wants to lose money selling it. In other words, it does not work for the sick - those who need health care. It'd be like an insurance company selling insurance to somebody for $100 knowing that the person is about to be robbed of $10,000.00.

I can think of two solutions:

A. Universal Health CareB. No medical history information to health insurance companies with prices by age and location alone. Contract length could be determined by the market. Also, health insurance companies must provide insurance for all ages with only Medicare for those over ~65.

Thoughts?

perhaps nationalizing the medical insurance companies and granting a partial expropriation would work...on another page...after all don't we, the people own a.i.g.? ;)

aye think that piecing this thing together over a long period of pondering and debate is the wiser choice...yes people will still get sick...but this is worth quite a bit of debate...

why not set a timetable? ;) one thing is for sure...this shows how strong the bush administration was with its resolve...and why bush will go down in history as one of our strongest wartime presidents...

if bush said he wanted medical insurance reform...he would have gotten it...promise. ;)

:D :D :D...nah...that's the leftwingnut in you thinking...explain why we are still following bush policies then?...eh, bigotboy?

...like aye wrote above...

if bush said he wanted medical insurance reform...he would have gotten it...promise ;)

Oxymoron. It wouldn't have been reform.

oh right...bush would have called it "the war on high cost medical insurance" and it would have stuck...bottom line...he still would have gotten his plan through the congress...like he did everything else...

:D :D :D...nah...that's the leftwingnut in you thinking...explain why we are still following bush policies then?...eh, bigotboy?

...like aye wrote above...

if bush said he wanted medical insurance reform...he would have gotten it...promise ;)

Oxymoron. It wouldn't have been reform.

oh right...bush would have called it "the war on high cost medical insurance" and it would have stuck...bottom line...he still would have gotten his plan through the congress...like he did everything else...

:D :D :D...nah...that's the leftwingnut in you thinking...explain why we are still following bush policies then?...eh, bigotboy?

...like aye wrote above...

if bush said he wanted medical insurance reform...he would have gotten it...promise ;)

Oxymoron. It wouldn't have been reform.

oh right...bush would have called it "the war on high cost medical insurance" and it would have stuck...bottom line...he still would have gotten his plan through the congress...like he did everything else...

Just like Social Security.

:

smokescreen, buddy..no...everything else...come on andrew...you know bush got everything he wanted through congress...be a realist...sorry...he woud have done it...congress was bush's foot-rest...or do you not remember how the enigmatic "w" got his way...

"the war on high cost medical insurance"..yep...w would have done it...wake up, andrew. ;)

if bush said he wanted medical insurance reform...he would have gotten it...promise ;)

His prescription drug plan was bad enough.

Quoted for the truth.

aye think you get the point that if bush wanted to have medical insurance reform he would have gotten it done...he would have called it the "war on high cost insurance companies"...he would have rammed it through the congress...he got everything else he wanted...that is political strength... ;)

so do you get the point, andrew? aye already know earlcat gets it.

while aye love 'bam as the prez...and the bush policies 'bam has kept in place...he doesn't have the same moxie the enigmatic "w" did...bush got everything he wanted.

Didn't Bush want bigger tax cuts and privitization of social security? And hydrogen cars? And to catch bin Laden?

did he really toil over s.s? hydrogen cars? :D :D :D...wasn't bush an oil man? and is bin laden in congress?

um...he had certain things pushed through congress and they did it...remember bush's moxie?...bush was liberal democrat proof...the big things bush wanted...congress did...and that my friend is a fact.

so...again...if bush called this present day issue "the war on high priced medical insurance"...and told congress to do it...they would have...they gave him everything else he wanted...

he would have gotten this issue done...sorry if u doubt...you forget how strong bush and his resolve was, aye think. ;)

as a side issue...aye am interested in having the number of trial lawyers reduced...muhuhaaahaaaaa...and how about tort reform? also...abortion has to be kept out of it...taxpayers should not pay for abortions.

Didn't Bush want bigger tax cuts and privitization of social security? And hydrogen cars? And to catch bin Laden?

aye got one for you...did bush really want to "catch" bin laden? aye think bush didn't care about "catching" o.b.l...aye think bush wanted to do something else to o.b.l...wasn't it al zawahiri and the organizations lieutenants whom bush wanted to catch...aye believe that the taliban wanted to give up bin laden...but the real issue was the dr. and the ringleaders...plus k.s.m...

As Congress begins its summer vacation, many journalists are finally getting a chance to dig a little deeper than the talking points and White House press conferences and catch up on all of the behind-the-scenes battles in the healthcare reform debate. Yesterday, the Associated Press became the first “mainstream” media outlet to report on the hidden abortion mandate in healthcare reform legislation being considered on Capitol Hill.

Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.

Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan. (AP: “Gov’t insurance would allow coverage for abortion“)

For weeks now, HealthcareHorserace.com has been covering this issue in anticipation of a major battle over abortion that could stall, if not defeat, Democrat efforts to push for healthcare reform that would lead to unprecedented government intervention in the healthcare industry.

In the House, the Capps Amendment calls for taxpayer funds to be used to finance elective abortion procedures under a public option insurance plan. The amendment also mandates that all Americans have access to at least one private plan that covers abortion procedures.

In the Senate, the Mikulski Amendment would require insurance agencies (public or private) to contract with “essential community providers” to provide healthcare services to Americans earning less than 400% of the poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) or risk losing the right to participate in mandatory state “American Health Benefit Gateways” as established under the HELP bill. During a protracted debate over the amendment, Mikulski admitted that Planned Parenthood qualified as an “essential community provider.” Requiring insurance companies to cover “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate” by these “essential community providers” amounts to an aboriton mandate in the eyes of many conservative and pro-life advocates.

All evidence points to an unwelcome floor debate on abortion in the House and Senate when lawmakers return post-Labor Day. As Democrats try to pass healthcare reform legislation by mid-October, they’ll be faced with opposition from vulnerable and Blue Dog Democrats who could very well lose their seats in the 2010 election if they vote for a pro-abortion reform bill. If reform legislation does make its way to President Obama’s desk, look for a battle in the courts with the first serious Supreme Court showdown over abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

liberals not stronger than bluedogs...and public option with abortion allowance is a "NO DEAL"...aye'm so so so sorry for the ad-libs. and anthony weiner-wrap-a-dog is going to cry hard because blue dogs jawed down on the "hidden" agenda.

um...blue dog supporters are also fiscally savvy and aware of abortion in the public option...oh....public clearly divided as far as public option...

get with program...

more blue dogs going to fill the house...

'bam not going to go with public option...he will straddle the issue...option off the table. ;) pubs and bluedogs don't want to rush this thing...too important to rush....REMEMBER the RUSH to go to IRAQ...{you must remember THAT rush, RIGHT?}

and stay away julie's uterus. "too importasnt rush" mean "me republican who not want any 'reform' because like insane insurance company practices." good luck with that, gomer.

wrong...too expensive and abortion not going to be paid for by the many...sorry...'bam will take it off table.

'sides...no tort reform???

and BAM...stands up to the liberal democratic doofus ilk...good luck going it alone now stupidberal jackasses....no rush to public option is a relief...thanks bam...many of us do not want to pay for the convenient killing of developing human beings...

...liberals get a cold shower....conservatives and independents will get this thing done...one day at a time...just like this country...obama moves to the right...smart move 'bam!

Obama's healthcare address: The middle man returnsThe politics of healthcare reform forced the president to the center.By Doyle McManus

September 10, 2009

President Obama rediscovered his inner centrist Wednesday night, forced by the arithmetic of congressional politics and the federal budget to trim his healthcare proposals to a new, more modest size.

On the surface, Obama's speech to Congress was aimed at shoring up sagging public support for healthcare reform by promising worried citizens that he won't bust the budget, won't force people to give up insurance they like and won't set up "death panels" to ration care for the elderly.

But the most important audience wasn't really the folks at home; it was the divided Democrats in Congress, plus one or two stray Republicans, whose help Obama needs to get a law passed.

For them, the president's message was double-edged. Liberals who had hoped for a big, government-run plan got a cold shower -- a warning from the president that if they hold out for everything they want, they may get nothing at all.

But for centrist "Blue Dogs" who want to keep federal spending down -- and who want to get reelected next year from conservative districts -- the president's message was a rousing "I'm on your side."

To make the plan attractive to the Blue Dogs, Obama promised that the cost of the bill would come in around $900 billion over 10 years, down from the $1.2 trillion most Democrats started with. He also promised spending cuts that would automatically kick in if costs turn out higher than expected. To help pay for his plan, he proposed a backdoor tax on high-end health insurance policies that will be hard for some labor unions to swallow (although it makes good economic sense). And he promised that 95% of small businesses wouldn't be required to pay for their employees' health insurance, a deep bow to the power of small business (or at least, the gauzy image of "small business") in the nation's heartland.

And what did liberals get? A stirring tribute to the importance of a "public option," the government-run insurance plan beloved by the left -- followed immediately by an offer to do without, if that's what's needed to pass a bill. Obama also promised that the plan would go most but not all the way toward providing insurance to the uninsured, and that it would include consumer protections, so that people would no longer lose coverage after getting sick or go bankrupt because their costs exceeded their insurance.

In the end, the speech won't spare Obama from the charge from the Republican right that he is a closet socialist who wants the government to take over healthcare; that has become an article of faith among many conservatives, and a few fiscal compromises won't shake it. But it does set up a test for Obama's liberal supporters, in Congress and across the nation: Will they take their president's advice and settle for half a loaf?

Obama said he wouldn't "waste time" debating healthcare with most Republicans anymore because they wanted only to kill his plan. Nevertheless, pieces of the plan appeared tailored to the tastes of the last two GOP senators who might vote for an Obama-sponsored bill, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both from Maine. Snowe has proposed a "trigger" that would allow the government to set up a public-option plan down the road if private insurance companies didn't meet expectations. Collins has said she's mostly just worried about the overall price tag.

But the real debate has been among Democrats all along. They have giant majorities in both houses, but they are also deeply divided. Liberals who have fought for healthcare reform for decades are disappointed that they can't get Canadian-style, government-run healthcare. The Blue Dogs, mostly from conservative constituencies in the South and mountain West, are terrified that a bill that looks too liberal or too expensive will mean they lose their jobs in November 2010.

So now the dance of legislation enters a period of negotiations between liberals and Blue Dogs, House members and senators. The Senate Finance Committee will try to settle on a compromise proposal, shaped mostly by Blue Dogs and those two Maine senators, sometime in mid-September.

The House will vote for a big-government version of healthcare reform, including a public-option plan, that will give liberals the brief pleasure of a chance to vote yes and endangered Blue Dogs an equally welcome chance to vote no. The Senate will vote for a bill with no public option, although it may have Snowe's trigger idea. In late October, members of the two houses will meet behind closed doors to wrestle over the final details.

If all that works, a bill that looks something like the plan Obama described last night will be passed before the end of the year.

Obama hasn't provided complete clarity on the details of the plan, but he has finally provided clarity on how to get there, and that is likely to be enough.

The outcome won't be perfect in anyone's eyes. But if Congress actually passes legislation the president signs into law, it will be the most important piece of healthcare legislation since Medicare was established in 1965 -- and no small achievement for a president who critics still dismiss as a liberal dreamer.

...oh those pesky devils in the detail...take time...breathe...don't rush this...18 bluedogs want to have tougher anti-abortion language...good for them.

Democrats' health-care split makes predictions impossible

By David Lightman

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Before President Barack Obama can sign health care legislation, his biggest sales challenge will be convincing his fellow Democrats in Congress to enact his plan.

The party is badly, even bitterly, divided over a host of hard-to-resolve issues — including the scale of government involvement, cost and abortion — making it impossible to predict whether Obama can muster the 218 House of Representatives and 60 Senate votes he needs to enact a bill.

Party leaders say that the turmoil is typical.

"We will have a bill," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said flatly in an interview with McClatchy.

Crafting a health care compromise, she said, isn't even the most difficult task she's had recently.

"The hardest thing I've had to do all year is (get more funding for) Iraq and Afghanistan," Pelosi said, recalling last spring's fight to provide more money for the two wars. "People just did not want to do it."

While almost all Democratic lawmakers want to overhaul America's health care system, however, there's no consensus on how to do it. With almost all Republicans opposed to any plan the Democratic majority favors, the measure must draw near-united Democratic support in order to pass.

Fifty-two of the 256 House Democrats consider themselves "Blue Dogs," or conservatives. They're concerned about any plan's cost and wary of being tagged as expanding Washington's reach by creating a government-run "public option" alternative to private health insurance. If the Blue Dogs stick together, Pelosi would need the support of more than a dozen Republicans to forge a 218-vote House majority, which seems all but impossible.

In addition, 18 House Democrats want tougher anti-abortion language in the legislation, which many Democrats who favor abortion rights oppose.

Pelosi, among many, also favors higher income tax rates on the rich, which most Senate Democrats reject.

The Senate faces a different numbers game. Sixty votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles, and Democrats now control 59 seats. Within a few weeks, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is expected to name an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy; former Gov. Michael Dukakis and former Democratic National Committee Chairman Paul Kirk are mentioned most prominently.

Because Senate Democrats are split by the same disagreements as House Democrats, however, securing support from all 60 is going to be tough, even though at least two Republicans, Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, have signaled a willingness to compromise, though not on a public option.

After Oct. 15, the Senate could pass a health care plan with 51 votes because of a rules change, but Democrats are reluctant to use that weapon, fearing a huge backlash.

Obama has tried mightily of late to promote party unity, starting with his address Sept. 9 to a joint session of Congress and continuing with more public rallies this week and private meetings with members of Congress.

When they were asked whether the White House push has helped forge consensus, Democrats were guarded in response.

"The president has improved the atmosphere," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.

The focus next week will be on the Senate Finance Committee, whose 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans will begin writing legislation Tuesday. They hope to finish within two weeks.

The Senate Finance Committee's healthcare bill won praise from a key centrist Democrat in the House, hailing it as an "important step forward" in the effort to achieve health reform.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), the co-chairwoman of the centrist blog of Blue Dog Democrats, gave the healthcare legislation released by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) a warm reception in a statement this morning.

"Today, the Senate took an important step forward as Congress moves to send responsible health care reform legislation to the President’s desk," Herseth Sandlin said. "I applaud Chairman Baucus and his colleagues in the Senate for their progress today and look forward to working together as we move to make health care reform a reality."

The Blue Dog leader's praise for the more centrist Finance committee bill puts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a tough spot, as Pelosi struggles to manage House centrists' concerns, as well as House liberals' refusal to vote for a health bill which lacks a public (or "government-run") option, as the Finance bill does.

"The draft released by Chairman Baucus addresses two central goals of the Blue Dog Coalition and the Administration: It is deficit neutral, and it takes real steps to bring down the cost of health care over the long term," she said. "Meeting these standards, also set forth by the President, is critical to reining in deficits and protecting our economy for future generations of Americans."

The Senate Finance Committee's healthcare bill won praise from a key centrist Democrat in the House, hailing it as an "important step forward" in the effort to achieve health reform.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), the co-chairwoman of the centrist blog of Blue Dog Democrats, gave the healthcare legislation released by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) a warm reception in a statement this morning.

"Today, the Senate took an important step forward as Congress moves to send responsible health care reform legislation to the President’s desk," Herseth Sandlin said. "I applaud Chairman Baucus and his colleagues in the Senate for their progress today and look forward to working together as we move to make health care reform a reality."

The Blue Dog leader's praise for the more centrist Finance committee bill puts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a tough spot, as Pelosi struggles to manage House centrists' concerns, as well as House liberals' refusal to vote for a health bill which lacks a public (or "government-run") option, as the Finance bill does.

"The draft released by Chairman Baucus addresses two central goals of the Blue Dog Coalition and the Administration: It is deficit neutral, and it takes real steps to bring down the cost of health care over the long term," she said. "Meeting these standards, also set forth by the President, is critical to reining in deficits and protecting our economy for future generations of Americans."

The Senate Finance Committee's healthcare bill won praise from a key centrist Democrat in the House, hailing it as an "important step forward" in the effort to achieve health reform.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), the co-chairwoman of the centrist blog of Blue Dog Democrats, gave the healthcare legislation released by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) a warm reception in a statement this morning.

"Today, the Senate took an important step forward as Congress moves to send responsible health care reform legislation to the President’s desk," Herseth Sandlin said. "I applaud Chairman Baucus and his colleagues in the Senate for their progress today and look forward to working together as we move to make health care reform a reality."

The Blue Dog leader's praise for the more centrist Finance committee bill puts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a tough spot, as Pelosi struggles to manage House centrists' concerns, as well as House liberals' refusal to vote for a health bill which lacks a public (or "government-run") option, as the Finance bill does.

"The draft released by Chairman Baucus addresses two central goals of the Blue Dog Coalition and the Administration: It is deficit neutral, and it takes real steps to bring down the cost of health care over the long term," she said. "Meeting these standards, also set forth by the President, is critical to reining in deficits and protecting our economy for future generations of Americans."

baucus bill going nowhere without many improvements.

no shite, sherlock... good thing is that the starting measure is not going to have the "public option"...funding for abortions must be put under the laser beam...public options are not going to make it out of committee...

republican lite was elected for a reason...and national security is a part of it...you don't remember when aye told you that republican lite had arrived...and who is to say that bluedogs aren't coming back...re-election...sure...

This is kind of funny. The Senate Finance Committee is going to vote this week on an amendment that would add a public option to their health care bill. If you are a Democrat, it sounds good so far, right? But the authors of the amendment, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), have stated that they know the amendment will not pass in the committee. So why are they forcing an amendment that will only serve to embarrass their fellow Democrats? Well, to embarrass their fellow Democrats, of course.

The spotlight this week will continue on the Senate Finance Committee, where amendments to add the public insurance option will be offered by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.). . . .

The Finance committee votes, which could come as early as this week, promise to be discomfiting for both liberals and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the embattled chairman of the Finance panel who is likely to vote against them. . . .

Rockefeller, Schumer and likeminded liberal senators begrudgingly acknowledge the votes are not there in the committee for the public option.

But they intend to force their colleagues to take a stand on the issue and possibly face the wrath of powerful interests such as labor unions and grassroots liberal activists.

So the Democrats are throwing their own guys overboard like chum to the union sharks. Sounds good to me. This is a Republican dream-plan being executed by Liberals.

And the Democrats’ problems are just beginning in the Senate Finance Committee. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will have a strong public option in its bill and Harry Reid will have to decide what goes to the floor for a final vote. Will it be the public option, co-ops, or something else? The centrist Dems will jump ship on the public option and the liberals will accept nothing short of one.

Then there is the problem in the House.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn’t having any easier a time despite having a large majority dominated by liberals. The centrist voting bloc, led by the Blue Dog coalition, is holding its ground against the public option. . . .

It’s not clear whether Pelosi will have the votes to win a healthcare vote on the floor if the public option is not included in the bill. But it’s also not clear she’ll win a vote with the public option, since Republicans are expected to vote en masse against the bill.

I would simply advise that if the Democrats are going to go with the circular firing squad, they should be sure to take careful aim.

republican lite was elected for a reason...and national security is a part of it...you don't remember when aye told you that republican lite had arrived...and who is to say that bluedogs aren't coming back...re-election...sure...

This is kind of funny. The Senate Finance Committee is going to vote this week on an amendment that would add a public option to their health care bill. If you are a Democrat, it sounds good so far, right? But the authors of the amendment, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), have stated that they know the amendment will not pass in the committee. So why are they forcing an amendment that will only serve to embarrass their fellow Democrats? Well, to embarrass their fellow Democrats, of course.

The spotlight this week will continue on the Senate Finance Committee, where amendments to add the public insurance option will be offered by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.). . . .

The Finance committee votes, which could come as early as this week, promise to be discomfiting for both liberals and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the embattled chairman of the Finance panel who is likely to vote against them. . . .

Rockefeller, Schumer and likeminded liberal senators begrudgingly acknowledge the votes are not there in the committee for the public option.

But they intend to force their colleagues to take a stand on the issue and possibly face the wrath of powerful interests such as labor unions and grassroots liberal activists.

So the Democrats are throwing their own guys overboard like chum to the union sharks. Sounds good to me. This is a Republican dream-plan being executed by Liberals.

And the Democrats’ problems are just beginning in the Senate Finance Committee. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will have a strong public option in its bill and Harry Reid will have to decide what goes to the floor for a final vote. Will it be the public option, co-ops, or something else? The centrist Dems will jump ship on the public option and the liberals will accept nothing short of one.

Then there is the problem in the House.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn’t having any easier a time despite having a large majority dominated by liberals. The centrist voting bloc, led by the Blue Dog coalition, is holding its ground against the public option. . . .

It’s not clear whether Pelosi will have the votes to win a healthcare vote on the floor if the public option is not included in the bill. But it’s also not clear she’ll win a vote with the public option, since Republicans are expected to vote en masse against the bill.

I would simply advise that if the Democrats are going to go with the circular firing squad, they should be sure to take careful aim.

it not just about retaining power, numbnuts. it about actually doing something important--which public clearly want, by way.

This is kind of funny. The Senate Finance Committee is going to vote this week on an amendment that would add a public option to their health care bill. If you are a Democrat, it sounds good so far, right? But the authors of the amendment, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), have stated that they know the amendment will not pass in the committee. So why are they forcing an amendment that will only serve to embarrass their fellow Democrats? Well, to embarrass their fellow Democrats, of course.

The spotlight this week will continue on the Senate Finance Committee, where amendments to add the public insurance option will be offered by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.). . . .

The Finance committee votes, which could come as early as this week, promise to be discomfiting for both liberals and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the embattled chairman of the Finance panel who is likely to vote against them. . . .

Rockefeller, Schumer and likeminded liberal senators begrudgingly acknowledge the votes are not there in the committee for the public option.

But they intend to force their colleagues to take a stand on the issue and possibly face the wrath of powerful interests such as labor unions and grassroots liberal activists.

So the Democrats are throwing their own guys overboard like chum to the union sharks. Sounds good to me. This is a Republican dream-plan being executed by Liberals.

And the Democrats’ problems are just beginning in the Senate Finance Committee. The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee will have a strong public option in its bill and Harry Reid will have to decide what goes to the floor for a final vote. Will it be the public option, co-ops, or something else? The centrist Dems will jump ship on the public option and the liberals will accept nothing short of one.

Then there is the problem in the House.

In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn’t having any easier a time despite having a large majority dominated by liberals. The centrist voting bloc, led by the Blue Dog coalition, is holding its ground against the public option. . . .

It’s not clear whether Pelosi will have the votes to win a healthcare vote on the floor if the public option is not included in the bill. But it’s also not clear she’ll win a vote with the public option, since Republicans are expected to vote en masse against the bill.

I would simply advise that if the Democrats are going to go with the circular firing squad, they should be sure to take careful aim.

it not just about retaining power, numbnuts. it about actually doing something important--which public clearly want, by way.

after all, you get health care from mechanic.

aye use the word power to get under your bigoted skin...and obviously...it works...

for we indigos...it is about national security...putting pressure on despots...dictators...and genocidal murderers...disrupting murdering regimes...continuing to pursue guerrillas fueled by fundamental theological delusion who murdered americans and are still on the run...and aye believe in doing something about those who plot to kill americans...also it is about making sure that we, the people do not pay for abortions and end up shelling out all our hard earned money to the federal government...u know...doing something about those things and actually having the balls to be pushy enough to get our way... conservative democrats are the new bluedogs...and don't think conservative values are going away anytime soon...

1. One of the problems with treating healthcare as a right is the fact that enjoying it requires the labor of others. Unless one can have the right to the labor of others, one cannot have a right to healthcare. (Or to jury trials, for that matter, but juries could more easily be provided on a voluntary basis than healthcare.)

2. AndrewStebbins mentioned the lack of prevenative care. I think this is largely a product of perverse cost incentives--it's simply cheaper on average to wait until an emergency, if one happens. I'm not sure how to solve either without forcing people to pay the true cost of ER visits, which would be politically suicidal to propose. There's also a problem with unhealthy lifestyle choices, which I'm not sure how to solve without coercion, except perhaps lifting government subsidies on unhealthy things like corn syrup and lifting duties on imports of healthy foods.

Another problem with healthcare costs is the overregulation. For instance, a new prescription drug sits unavailable for at least 10 years after its development before it is even decided if it will ever be available to the public. Imagine if every time a new car was developed, Chevy had to wait 10 years before finding out if it gets to sell it. Car prices would skyrocket. Once drugs are finally produced, the prescription drug laws work to keep prices high. For instance, I take a prescription that costs $60 each month. There is another drug on the market that is the same exact medicine in 4x the dose. This drug, however, can only legally be prescribed for an ailment I don't have. It's cost? Also $60. Were this restriction lifted, I could purchase this second pill and a pill-cutter, instantly getting the same benefit for 1/4 the cost.

Another problem is that much of our healthcare expenses are guaranteed by the government programs, so there is no incentive among providers to keep costs down. (We see the same problem in the cost of tuition at universities--subsidized loans guarantee money for schools, who in turn have little incentive to control costs.)

3. If costs correlated with benefits, water would be the most expensive thing on earth.

4. The solution is not universal healthcare. Healthcare, unfortunately, has finite availability. When you give scarce things away for free, you run out. The task is to figure out the most efficient way to distribute the resources that we have, and central planning and single-payer systems (in any industry) have had a dismally poor track record throughout history.

One thing I think would do a lot is to lift most of the regulations on healthcare and allow patients, if they choose, to seek riskier treatment options (e.g. experimental or unapproved drugs, doctors with lesser credentials, etc.). We could also alter the law for drug patents adding a mandatory licensing fee, like we have for certain copyrights. That way generics could be available from day one while still offering the patent holders at least some protection.

I cant really get too involved because I dont have the time to sacrifice but I do have to chime in alittle on your #2 comment...Preventative care is undoubtedly much less expensive that ER care. ER care involves many more costs than does a regular check-up at a family doctor. Many people do not have regular check-ups because they cannot afford to pay out of pocket; instead, they wait til something serious happens and then they go to the ER where they will not be turned away. Well... Someone pays those salaries of the people who take care of this uninsured person and it is incidentally the people who HAVE insurance. Why not make preventative care available to EVERYONE and eliminate these types of inefficiencies... Also, the overcrowding of ERs for headaches and "back pain" hurts those who HAVE health insurance and HAVE emergencies. I don't want to wait 3 hours in an ER waiting room because I cut my hand and 10 people are trying to score OXY's.... I know I probably sound like I am regurgitating something that could be discussed on Bill Maher but the fact is that this is reality. There may be no perfect system of medical care for our country but I think we can agree that the one we have now is DEFINITELY not good, nevermind perfect...... We think that we are the "gold standard" example of how countries should be run but this is a complete delusion. The reality is that healthcare reform isnt being challenged because it is "bad" for american citizens; it is being challenged because it is SOOOO GOOOD financially for SOME citizens.... eh hem... Politicians....?

this pro-abortion issue must be resolved...part of the reason why this major tax hike needs more scrutiny..

bluedogs in charge.

24 democrats want succinct language...so the debate continues...

Rep. Bart Stupak...a michgn democrat said...a sharper focus is necessary... "to clarify that no federal funds should be used to fund abortions and the essential benefits package cannot define abortion as an essential service."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) leftward push on the public option in healthcare reform ran into turbulence Thursday when a survey of her caucus showed she needs more votes to pass such a bill.

The survey ordered by Pelosi turned up 46 Democrats who said they would vote against the so-called “robust” public option, according to a Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

If Republicans unite against the health bill, as they’re expected to do, 39 Democratic defectors would block it from getting the 218 votes needed to pass.

The Democratic lawmaker, who is in favor of the public option, said leaders are considering pulling the liberal public option from the bill and looking at other alternatives, such as a public option detached from Medicare coupled with an expansion of Medicaid, the healthcare program for the poor. That approach, called “negotiated rates,” is supported more by House centrists, including many Blue Dog Democrats.

A House leadership source said the decisions Thursday were “in flux.”

Meanwhile, The New York Times on Thursday reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is leaning toward including a public option in the healthcare reform bill he takes to the Senate floor.

After a meeting at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday, Reid said, “We had a good meeting, but no decisions were made.”

While Pelosi apparently needs to persuade more of her caucus to get behind her yet-to-be-released bill, she has a proven record of getting controversial bills to 218 votes. Earlier this year, Pelosi defied many pundits by passing a climate change bill, 219-212.

Pelosi on Thursday reaffirmed her support for some sort of government-run plan to compete with private insurance companies. But she did not insist on the “Medicare plus 5 percent” plan her fellow liberals are demanding. That plan ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent.

“We will have a bill that will go to the floor, and it will have a public option in it,” Pelosi told reporters. “The question is, what form does that take?”

But she also said that the “negotiated rates” option, in which plan administrators negotiate reimbursement individually with providers, pushes costs higher than the $900 billion threshold set by President Barack Obama.

“The negotiated rates, which has some support in our caucus, is over $900 billion,” Pelosi told reporters.

Supporters of the more liberal option said their plan was still very much alive, and questioned the whip count.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said many of the lawmakers who said they’re against the robust option want something else.

“The closer we get to 218, the more leverage there is for someone to raise concerns,” Weiner said. “There are definitely some things we need to address.”

Other lawmakers complained that some of the vote counters on the whip team were themselves against the Medicare-based public option. Some said members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus raised concerns about how legal immigrants would be covered. But Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) told The Hill her group supports Pelosi’s plan.

Opponents of the liberal approach have hinted that they could block it. Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), a Blue Dog leader, said Wednesday that there are only 12 Blue Dogs who support the Medicare-based plan, suggesting that the other 40 oppose it. But he added that Blue Dogs hadn’t done their own vote count recently.

Other “no” votes could come from the left, because some members believe the final bill will fall well short of a single-payer approach.

And though the public option has dominated the debate among House Democrats, there are lawmakers threatening to vote against the bill for other reasons. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) said he’d vote for the robust public option, but would vote against the bill because of the income surtax it would impose on the wealthy.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has said he thinks there are many anti-abortion rights Democrats who are ready to block the bill because of their belief it would subsidize abortion. He said Thursday that he has negotiated with leadership, but they haven’t been able to come up with legislative language that satisfies both sides of the abortion debate.

...wow! aye mentioned the shift of the democrat party toward conservative concerns back in 06' and u laughed...now you really know who the bluedogs are...it is funny, now that the bluedogs control the congress...oh you fool...

and now the abortion issue is the concern regarding medical insurance reform...that public option could be doomed {if it isn't already} if the abortion issue is not addressed...

blew dogs going oppose public option in any case. if they succeed, it their asses most on line in '10. that ok with julie.

tort "reform" total joke except to corporate blowjobbers like you.

what matter you not like democrats now? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

:D :D :D...we got their asses in line and elected back in 06...and if you think they will be gone...guess what?...remember when aye was tellin' ya about "republican lite" and you thought is was great that, "all these dems have won"...aye laughed then at you...and aye really laugh now at you...

hey, bigotboy, you will remember this now, "don't ask for what you want...you might get it." aye warned you.

more conservatives ready to take their place...

face it...now abortion is the issue of the day...when was aye tellin' ya about that, toodletardboy?

...for the record...careless women can legally get an abortion once a month for all aye care...the public just isn't paying for it...simple really. ;D

....and when did aye tell you that that was going to be the new "make or break" issue of the medical insurance reform debate? this thing needs a lot more debate...think it through...don't bankrupt the country...

...no spare change for abortions...let abortionists pay for it out of their own pocket...not the rest of us...it is our public option.

the liberal left congress has been repudiated, reprimanded and discredited: now lets take time for some REAL reform with all parties on board...

bam' is down with this all inclusive discussion...some things take time...like aye once suggested for the patience involved with the operations in iraq...and the liberation of a great people from the tyranny of saddam hussein and baath party...sometimes long discussion is necessary...not short shrifts...rumsfield was wrong...time and laboring effort was needed in mesopoetamia...

AdvertisementMy college sociology professor always gave his classes term papers that we knew would take half a semester of solitary confinement in the graduate library.

But, like most workers, the professor was not fond of uncompensated overtime just to grade the ridiculous ramblings of a sophomore suffering from a weekend hangover. So he limited the length of our papers and reminded us to get to work promptly.

"If I have more time, I can write a shorter paper," he reminded us.

It was the only good advice I ever heard from a socialist. And, I hope that the Congress will take that advice, too.

With the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate, health-care reform has stalled. It was 2,000 pages of leftist legal regurgitation from 60 years of dreams originated by politicians who advocated the policies of Lenin and Trotsky as the solution for the problems of the Great Depression.

So it is now my dream that the current socialists who still maintain a commanding legislative majority will take the advice of their "fellow traveler" from Carolina and take more time. Write a shorter law.

It can be done. I spent 30 years practicing law in California, where Governor Pat Brown Jr. told us that "less is more." I have a few minutes, so I can give them a little less. I can write SB 2010 as follows:

1.Interstate Sale of Insurance: In order to aid in the expansion of interstate commerce in intangible goods, it shall be permissible for persons licensed to sell health insurance in any state to sell health insurance through a licensed insurance broker in the state in which the policy is purchased. The state from which the product originates must allow the policy to be sold to its citizens and must guarantee the solvency of the issuing company through an insurance guarantee fund utilized by all that state's admitted carriers.

1.Tort Reform: In order for any state to receive existing funding for schools of medicine, it must limit the liability of health-care providers to no more than $250,000 for noneconomic damages such as "pain and suffering." This amount shall be adjusted upward or downward each Jan. 2 based upon the rise or fall of the Consumer Price Index

2.More Tort Reform: In order for states to receive existing federal funding for schools of medicine: (1) No attorney in the state may collect as his fee more than 25 percent of a medical malpractice settlement award; (2) No amount of damages may be collected from any negligent health-care provider except in the proportion to the actor's percentage of negligence; and (3) If a plaintiff commences an action for medical malpractice, the parties that prevail shall be entitled to their reasonable attorney fees from the non-prevailing party.

3.Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions/No Cancellation: Any medical insurance policy written by a company involved in commerce shall not exclude coverage for pre-existing conditions as long as the insured has been continually insured for the previous year. If not insured for the previous year, the insured shall have coverage for pre-existing illnesses not more than one year after insurance commences. And no insurance policy in force for one year or more may be canceled or contested for any reason except nonpayment of premium.

Now, I do not believe that Harry Reid will be receptive to this bill, chiefly because it will not cost the government any money. Put another way, there is no tax money in the bill to pay off the unions in his Nevada casinos.

Yet I believe that if the public wants health reform at all, given the time we now have to exhale the smog-filled air of Pelosi's San Francisco, we can write a much shorter bill that breaks a new ground of fairness for patients whose appendix need an extraction as opposed to the cash in their wallets.

Both Congress and the president were reprimanded by the voters of Massachusetts. I hope they now know that part of the art of politics is the same as the art of a KISS: "Keep it -simple, stupid."

Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@Prodigy.net.

julie certainly can see connection between your goatfucking and health care. sound like veterinarians should be consulted, too.

maybe now we will have a real discussion about healthcare and put some tort reform in there and allow folks to pick insurance companies from anywhere in these free united states...real discussion will keep the abortion activists hands with their "elective surgical procedures" out of the public pocket.

Leading up to Thursday's health care summit, there has been plenty of chatter about everything from consideration of an excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans to whether President Obama will sit at the table with congressional leaders or speak from a podium. But Democrats and Republicans alike have uttered hardly a word about an issue that could sink the health reform effort unless it is resolved: abortion.

The silence is surprising given that disagreements about abortion coverage almost scuttled health reform in the House last fall. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasn't able to gather sufficient votes to pass the health reform bill until after she struck a deal with pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak to allow a vote on his amendment that would prohibit plans that cover abortion in an insurance exchange from receiving federal subsidies. The House voted to approve the amendment's tough language, which became part of the final bill. Even so, heading into the health summit, no one — from the White House on down — knows whether abortion will still be an obstacle to passing a reform bill. (See the top 10 players in health care reform.)

The proposal Obama released on Monday does not address the question of abortion coverage. Both pro-life and pro-choice politicians are interpreting that absence to mean that the White House supports using the abortion provision authored by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, which became part of the Senate version of health reform. The Nelson language, less restrictive than Stupak's, would allow a woman receiving federal subsidies to purchase insurance from a plan that covers abortions, but those subsidies must be segregated and not used to pay for abortion procedures.

The U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops has made clear that it considers the Nelson language "deficient," and Stupak released a statement on Tuesday declaring that anything short of his abortion restriction would be "unacceptable." Shortly after the House bill passed in November, Stupak vowed that 40 Democrats would stand with him to vote against final passage of health reform if his strict language was not included. (See TIME's health and medicine covers.)

It's far from certain that Stupak can rally that number, so the White House's decision to use the Nelson language in a reconciliation bill may be a smart political move. According to leadership aides, however, there have been no conversations between the White House and congressional leaders about the abortion issue, which a staffer said had been put on the "back burner." Nor did the White House consult with pro-life Democrats before deciding to go with the Nelson language.

As of this week, no one in the House leadership can answer the question of whether the Nelson language would cause some pro-life Democrats who supported health reform in November to vote against a reconciliation bill. There simply is no way of knowing whether the President's approach would garner enough votes to pass.

But on the basis of conversations with a half-dozen key congressional offices, we can identify four categories of House members who will be crucial to Democratic attempts to pass a bill. The first group includes Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment and yet opposed final passage of the House bill. There were 23 of these Democrats, mostly Representatives from Southern congressional districts, like Heath Shuler of North Carolina and Gene Taylor of Mississippi. It's safe to say that Democratic leaders shouldn't worry about which abortion language is preferred by these members because that wasn't the issue that prevented them from supporting health reform.

The second group will also probably avoid lobbying attention, but for a different reason. Roughly 17 Democrats with mixed voting records on abortion issues voted for the Stupak amendment and the House bill. These Democrats are not members of the congressional pro-life caucus but were concerned about what appeared to be federal funding of abortion in the original version of health reform. However, they would have settled for something far short of the strict prohibition in the Stupak amendment, and they are likely to be comfortable with the Nelson language. (See the top 10 health care reform ads.)

Another 24 members who supported Stupak and the House bill are solidly pro-life. The key question for them is whether they are willing to accept an abortion prohibition that falls short of the Stupak language. No one in the House leadership has polled members on this point to get a head count, but the best guess is that many in this category would be satisfied with the Nelson language. A number of them signed onto a compromise offered last fall by Brad Ellsworth of Indiana — himself a member of this group — that would have strengthened the segregation of subsidies and ensured that no federal dollars could be used to fund elective abortions in an exchange.

The final group of 16 Democrats voted against both the Stupak amendment and the House bill. While abortion did not drive their votes in November, these members could be in play if the House votes on a reconciliation bill. Half of the members of this group are freshmen Democrats who opposed the House bill because of concerns about cost or because they opposed the public option, which is not in the Senate version. The biggest mystery is figuring out which way these Democrats are leaning. But Democratic leaders might find that a slightly more modest reconciliation bill could swing enough of this group to offset any pro-life Democrats who jump ship over the Nelson language.

The question of abortion coverage is not on the agenda for the White House summit. Whether he wants to or not, however, Obama may be forced to talk about the one issue his proposal has avoided if he has any hopes of succeeding on health reform.

no...but if one meets up with an egg and a human being is on the way...aye am not paying to kill the developing human...let the couple or the mother pay for the elective surgery to destroy the embryo...

ever see a fetus crushed and destroyed by an extractor...it is f-ing disgusting and somewhat along the lines of a "nazi human experiment" video....

but, john if you want to pay for other people's convenience...help folks out...go for it...give your money to an abortion clinic...it will be your little contribution.

oh, everyone who doesn't want to pay for other peoples elective surgery and think abortion is a disgusting operation are killing people in fertility labs? that is some stupid logic, my man.

you have a backwards redneck way about you with your glaring prejudice.

ps. and you are incorrct when you ignore or leave out {the former is probably more accurate since aye doubt you understand nuance} the senate language which does allow two options with regard to providing public funding for abortions... the senate version of the bill has this opt in clause for abortion funding...there should be NO public funding for abortion since the hyde amendment is the provisional rule...re read the abortion section of the senate mark up and you will find the language...

if you can re-read or even have the ability to research the topic...

until then stfu about things which you have no idea...

oh, yeah...that redneck mentality you sport gets you in a lot of trouble aye am sure

who accuse you violence? (not that it would surprise julie: you never met war not like, you pissant.)

and you absolutely incorrect about senate bill, which is one of current lies being spread by your ilk. merged senate bill does not allow federal money be used abortions, however many times you and yours lie about it. bill does allow women buy unsubsidized abortion coverage with own money, but assholes like you not able handle even that. given how this set up, it highly unlikely such plans even be offered by insurance companies. rich women, of course, still can get their abortions.

stop drinking and then you be more focused...so you admit to your gross generalization...good.

NO public...any public...not even small amount of public money to pay for abortions...NO allowance for elective surgery...YES!! pay for elective surgery out of your own pocket...that is exactly how it should be...plastic surgery as well...

NOW you get it...and you admit that aye was right...because you admit to it in your post...now you catching on read what you wrote again in RED...

that is part of what aye was talking about...NO ALLOWANCES...

let the women or men and women since this is really about convenience and not just a woman's reproductive issue to pay for their own 100 to 500 dollar elective surgery...

now you get it...

and you see how important the pro-life/fiscal conservative {DEMOCRAT} NOT REPUBLICAN issue is now to "medical insurance reform"...told you it would take a lot of debate..

This issue is what holds things up from adopting this bill...and it is ELECTIVE surgery...elective surgery...how inane...just go with stupak language and the bill gets signed...simple really.

now the good news...the bill’s requirement to strictly segregate funds provides a disincentive for insurers to cover abortion...it’s going to be difficult to make sure that they’re doing it correctly and if insurance companies find abortion coverage too onerous to provide...they could just give the whole thing up....

who accuse you violence? (not that it would surprise julie: you never met war not like, you pissant.)

and you absolutely incorrect about senate bill, which is one of current lies being spread by your ilk. merged senate bill does not allow federal money be used abortions, however many times you and yours lie about it. bill does allow women buy unsubsidized abortion coverage with own money, but assholes like you not able handle even that. given how this set up, it highly unlikely such plans even be offered by insurance companies. rich women, of course, still can get their abortions.

Now that I live in SE Asia, I learn that the US pays way too much for health care. An MRI here costs about $200USD instead of the $2000USD+ for one in the US.

The problem isn't health insurance it's health care costs. A US doctor earns several 100 grand/yr after going to school for 8 years after highschool plus 4-8 years of residency. Frankly, after that kind of time and money investment, they deserve huge salaries. Still, they don't need that much education to treat the flu or a broken arm. A two-year degree is all an RN needs and they should treat those types of maladies. We just have this "right to health care" mentality (meaning the right to see a M.D. whenever we have the flue). A two-year degree doesn't deserve more than a $35k/yr salary (in all but large cities) and the cost of health care should reflect that. I suppose other wages could increase to match health care wages, but that's not happening so health care wages and spending should decrease.

I oppose the mentality because it further pepetuates the US' number one problem - the feeling that we have the "right" to evertything we want even if we cannot pay for it. Plus the right to a bailout when life treats us bad. Just look at our credit card debt verses savings and poor families (or single mothers) with 3+ children - not to mention our Fed. and State deficits. In other words, we are selfish.

A US doctor earns several 100 grand/yr after going to school for 8 years after highschool plus 4-8 years of residency. Frankly, after that kind of time and money investment, they deserve huge salaries.

I come from a country with universal, government paid healthcare. Our doctors still make from $100-500k a year. I don't see how there's a conflict between paying what people deserve and still offering healthcare for everyone.

Quote

We just have this "right to health care" mentality (meaning the right to see a M.D. whenever we have the flue).

Really? Seems to me Americans are less entitled to health care (and also expect less) than anyone else, in any other industrialized country.

Quote

A two-year degree doesn't deserve more than a $35k/yr salary (in all but large cities) and the cost of health care should reflect that. I suppose other wages could increase to match health care wages, but that's not happening so health care wages and spending should decrease.

If you think it's the salaries of doctors that create ridiculous healthcare costs, you're seriously delusional.

Quote

US' number one problem - the feeling that we have the "right" to evertything we want even if we cannot pay for it.

Really? Expecting society to have the decency to give everyone healthcare is the number one problem in the US? Really?!

Quote

Plus the right to a bailout when life treats us bad. Just look at our credit card debt verses savings and poor families (or single mothers) with 3+ children - not to mention our Fed. and State deficits. In other words, we are selfish.

Just turn all those aborted babies into vitamins for the rich. "Stem cell cola" it could sell for $100 a can, and its all profit since you just have to raid the "abanded" property in the trash can outside the clinic and invest in one juicer/blender and a deliapron and the rest is pure V-8 looking profit! "It tastes so good, it makes you wanna slap yo momma!"(for not doing the same with your little brother that she forgot to tell you and your Dad about after her trip to Europe with her "business partner" last summer)

A US doctor earns several 100 grand/yr after going to school for 8 years after highschool plus 4-8 years of residency. Frankly, after that kind of time and money investment, they deserve huge salaries.

I come from a country with universal, government paid healthcare. Our doctors still make from $100-500k a year. I don't see how there's a conflict between paying what people deserve and still offering healthcare for everyone.

Quote

We just have this "right to health care" mentality (meaning the right to see a M.D. whenever we have the flue).

Really? Seems to me Americans are less entitled to health care (and also expect less) than anyone else, in any other industrialized country.

Quote

A two-year degree doesn't deserve more than a $35k/yr salary (in all but large cities) and the cost of health care should reflect that. I suppose other wages could increase to match health care wages, but that's not happening so health care wages and spending should decrease.

If you think it's the salaries of doctors that create ridiculous healthcare costs, you're seriously delusional.

Quote

US' number one problem - the feeling that we have the "right" to evertything we want even if we cannot pay for it.

Really? Expecting society to have the decency to give everyone healthcare is the number one problem in the US? Really?!

Quote

Plus the right to a bailout when life treats us bad. Just look at our credit card debt verses savings and poor families (or single mothers) with 3+ children - not to mention our Fed. and State deficits. In other words, we are selfish.

A US doctor earns several 100 grand/yr after going to school for 8 years after highschool plus 4-8 years of residency. Frankly, after that kind of time and money investment, they deserve huge salaries.

I come from a country with universal, government paid healthcare. Our doctors still make from $100-500k a year. I don't see how there's a conflict between paying what people deserve and still offering healthcare for everyone.

Quote

We just have this "right to health care" mentality (meaning the right to see a M.D. whenever we have the flue).

Really? Seems to me Americans are less entitled to health care (and also expect less) than anyone else, in any other industrialized country.

Quote

A two-year degree doesn't deserve more than a $35k/yr salary (in all but large cities) and the cost of health care should reflect that. I suppose other wages could increase to match health care wages, but that's not happening so health care wages and spending should decrease.

If you think it's the salaries of doctors that create ridiculous healthcare costs, you're seriously delusional.

Quote

US' number one problem - the feeling that we have the "right" to evertything we want even if we cannot pay for it.

Really? Expecting society to have the decency to give everyone healthcare is the number one problem in the US? Really?!

Quote

Plus the right to a bailout when life treats us bad. Just look at our credit card debt verses savings and poor families (or single mothers) with 3+ children - not to mention our Fed. and State deficits. In other words, we are selfish.

So whether you live or die is analogous to credit card debt?

1. You made no point.2. You didn't address my point.3. Americans have better health care than any other nation. It's just very expensive and not all of us can afford it.4. You didn't address my point.5. You didn't get my point - I didn't mention health care here.6. Yes. In a 3rd world country people who waste their money and resources die. Just because we live in developed countries does not mean we have more inherent rights than those in 3rd world countries. We are just better thieves.

I motioned against an attorney who responded like you did (by ignoring my points) - and I won with a 3 page opinion written by the Judge who agreed with me. My reply to her response was almost as short as this reply to yours.

3. Americans have better health care than any other nation. It's just very expensive and not all of us can afford it.

This is blatantly false, although right wingers love to repeat it endlessly. I've lived in 7 different countries, and I'd rank US health care 6th among those. And no, I'm no poor, so it's a separate argument from cost/insurance.

Quote

6. Yes. In a 3rd world country people who waste their money and resources die. Just because we live in developed countries does not mean we have more inherent rights than those in 3rd world countries. We are just better thieves.

I'm not sure whether I should call this retarded or arrogant. I'll go with both.

Quote

I motioned against an attorney who responded like you did (by ignoring my points) - and I won with a 3 page opinion written by the Judge who agreed with me. My reply to her response was almost as short as this reply to yours.

1) I don't see how this is relevant 2) I don't see any reason to believe you.

1. First, is it a right or privilege or something else? Some believe a right - like trial by jury. Some believe a privilege that we must earn - like a gold watch. The problem is that it costs more than a gold watch and is more necessary to survival than a jury trial. Sub-questions galore - smokers, obese, poor, elderly, exercise, nutrition...

2. Why does it cost so much? For crying out loud, in this day and age computers keep improving and costing less. Why not an MRI? It seems competition does not affect health care very much.

3. So if it continues to cost more, does it improve lifetimes or quality? Honestly, I don't know.

Insurance has been around for thousands of years (shipping) - usually to protect investments against disaster or theft. The idea being that the insurer made a profit by selling insurance to many people in return for accepting the risk of disaster or theft. It made a profit if few disasters and thefts occurred. The insured benefited because if disaster or theft occurred, it recouped its loses from the insurer. It worked because the insurer knew the risk of disaster or theft and could then calculate how much to charge the insured in return for accepting the risk.

The problem with health insurance is that everybody wants it, but nobody wants to lose money selling it. In other words, it does not work for the sick - those who need health care. It'd be like an insurance company selling insurance to somebody for $100 knowing that the person is about to be robbed of $10,000.00.

I can think of two solutions:

A. Universal Health CareB. No medical history information to health insurance companies with prices by age and location alone. Contract length could be determined by the market. Also, health insurance companies must provide insurance for all ages with only Medicare for those over ~65.